Question

The government of a state made a rule to make it discretionary to grant dearness allowance to its employees. One of the employees filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to compel the government to grant dearness allowance. In the given situation, which of the following statements is true?

• A. Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as no legal duty was imposed on the government to grant dearness allowance.
• B. Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as a statutory right was conferred on the employee to receive dearness allowance.
• C. Writ of mandamus can be granted as it is a public law remedy.
• D. Writ of mandamus can be granted as it is a discretionary remedy.
• A. Writ of mandamus can be granted as it is an equitable remedy.
• B. Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as no legal duty is imposed on the government to pass a law to curb the ill-effects of climate change.
• C. Writ of mandamus can be granted as it is a discretionary remedy.
• D. Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as there is no violation of fundamental right.
• A. Writ of mandamus can be granted as it is a discretionary remedy.
• B. Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as there is no violation of fundamental right.
• C. Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as Mr. B's right under the contract is a private right.
• D. Writ of mandamus can be granted as there is no statutory duty imposed on Mr. A to fulfill his contractual obligations.
• A. Writ of mandamus can be granted compelling the license officer to issue the license.
• B. Writ of mandamus cannot be granted compelling the license officer to issue the license as there is no violation of fundamental right.
• C. Writ of mandamus can be granted as it is the discretion of the licensing officer to grant license.
• D. Writ of mandamus cannot be granted compelling the license officer to issue the license as there is no violation of public duty.
• A. Writ of mandamus may be issued in favour of a person who establishes the existence of a legal right.
• B. Writ of mandamus may be issued against a person or authority who has a mandatory duty to perform but has failed or has neglected to do so.
• C. Writ of mandamus is purported to prevent disorder emanating from failure of justice.
• D. Writ of mandamus may be requested to be issued to compel performance of private duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The correct option is (A): Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as no legal duty was imposed on the government to grant dearness allowance.

Answer 2

The passage establishes that a writ of mandamus can be granted only where two conditions are jointly satisfied: a legal duty is imposed on the public authority, and the petitioner has a corresponding legal right to compel performance of that duty, with such duty arising strictly "by operation of law" rather than from discretion. Applying this principle to the facts, where a state government made granting dearness allowance discretionary, let's assess each option:

1. Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as no legal duty was imposed on the government to grant dearness allowance: Because the government's own rule made the grant of dearness allowance discretionary rather than mandatory, there is no legal duty on the government to grant it. Since mandamus requires an existing legal duty as its very foundation, and none exists here, mandamus cannot be issued. This directly matches the passage's stated precondition.
2. Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as a statutory right was conferred on the employee to receive dearness allowance: This option gets the conclusion right (mandamus cannot be granted) but for a reason that contradicts the facts. The facts state the rule was made discretionary, meaning no statutory right to receive dearness allowance was conferred on the employee at all; this option's reasoning is factually inconsistent with the scenario.
3. Writ of mandamus can be granted as it is a public law remedy: While mandamus is indeed a public law remedy in general, simply being a public law remedy is not sufficient on its own; the passage makes clear that mandamus additionally requires an existing legal duty and a corresponding right, both of which are absent here. This option ignores that essential precondition.
4. Writ of mandamus can be granted as it is a discretionary remedy: This confuses two different senses of "discretionary". The passage describes the High Court's writ jurisdiction itself as discretionary and equitable, meaning the court has discretion whether to grant relief, but this is separate from whether a legal duty exists on the authority in the first place. Here, the underlying duty to grant dearness allowance was itself made discretionary by the government's rule, so there is no enforceable duty to begin with, regardless of the court's own discretion.

Since the government's rule left the grant of dearness allowance to its own discretion, no legal duty was imposed that the employee could compel through mandamus.

Therefore, the correct answer is Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as no legal duty was imposed on the government to grant dearness allowance.

Answer 3

The correct option is (B): Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as no legal duty is imposed on the government to pass a law to curb the ill-effects of climate change.

Answer 4

The question turns on whether a court can direct the government, through mandamus, to enact a law curbing climate change. Let's examine each option in light of what mandamus actually requires:

1. Option A: Calling mandamus an "equitable remedy" does not, by itself, make it available here. Mandamus is a public law remedy that compels the performance of an existing legal duty owed by a public authority; it is not granted merely because a court thinks it would be equitable or fair to do so. Since there is no pre-existing legal duty on the government to pass this particular law, the equitable character of the remedy is irrelevant, and this option is incorrect.
2. Option B: This correctly identifies the real obstacle. Mandamus can only be issued to compel a public authority to perform a duty that the law has already imposed on it. Enacting legislation is a legislative, policy-making function within the discretion of Parliament or the State Legislature; no statute or constitutional provision obliges the government to pass a specific law on climate change. Courts cannot use mandamus to direct the legislature on what laws to make, because doing so would mean creating the very duty the writ is supposed to enforce. Since no such legal duty exists, mandamus cannot be granted.
3. Option C: Mandamus does carry an element of discretion in the sense that a court may decline to grant it even where grounds exist, but this discretion does not manufacture a duty where none exists in the first place. The absence of any legal obligation to legislate is the operative bar here, not a question of how the court will exercise its discretion, so this option misstates the reason.
4. Option D: Mandamus is not confined to cases involving fundamental rights, it lies whenever a public authority fails to perform a duty imposed by law, statutory or otherwise. So the absence of a fundamental-rights violation is not, by itself, the reason mandamus fails here. The real reason is the absence of any legal duty to legislate, which is what Option B captures precisely.

On weighing all four options, the only one that correctly identifies why the petition must fail is the absence of a legal duty compelling the government to pass such a law.

Therefore, the correct answer is Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as no legal duty is imposed on the government to pass a law to curb the ill-effects of climate change.

Answer 5

The correct option is (C): Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as Mr. B's right under the contract is a private right.

Answer 6

Mr. B wants a court to use mandamus to force Mr. A, a private party, to perform his obligations under a contract of sale. The question is whether mandamus is the right tool for enforcing a private contractual right. Let's look at each option:

1. Option A: Describing mandamus as a "discretionary remedy" does not answer whether it is available at all in this fact pattern. Discretion governs whether a court grants relief once the basic conditions for mandamus are met, it does not by itself make the remedy available against a private party enforcing a private contractual claim.
2. Option B: Mandamus is not restricted to fundamental-rights violations, it lies for breach of any public law duty. So the absence of a fundamental-rights violation is not the actual reason the petition fails here, the real problem lies elsewhere.
3. Option C: This identifies the correct bar. Mandamus is a public law remedy meant to compel public authorities, or those exercising public functions, to perform duties owed to the public generally. Mr. B's claim arises purely out of a private contract between two individuals, and Mr. A owes Mr. B no public duty, only a private contractual obligation. Since mandamus cannot be used to enforce purely private rights and obligations, which have their own remedies under contract law, this is the correct basis for refusal.
4. Option D: This option gets the logic backwards, it suggests mandamus can be granted precisely because there is no statutory duty, when in fact the absence of any public or statutory duty is exactly why mandamus cannot be granted against Mr. A. A private contractual obligation is not converted into a statutory duty merely because it remains unfulfilled.

Weighing the four options, only the private nature of Mr. B's right under the contract correctly explains why mandamus is unavailable.

Therefore, the correct answer is Writ of mandamus cannot be granted as Mr. B's right under the contract is a private right.

Answer 7

The correct option is (A): Writ of mandamus can be granted compelling the license officer to issue the license.

Answer 8

Mr. X met every condition prescribed for the license, yet the licensing officer, who is under a statutory duty to issue the license once conditions are fulfilled, rejected the application. The question asks what remedy is available. Let's assess each option:

1. Option A: This is the correct outcome. Where a statute imposes a clear duty on an officer to issue a license once the prescribed conditions are satisfied, and the applicant has in fact satisfied those conditions, the officer has no residual discretion left to refuse. This is precisely the kind of ministerial, non-discretionary public duty that mandamus exists to enforce, so the license officer can be compelled to issue the license.
2. Option B: Mandamus does not require a fundamental-rights violation, it is available whenever a public authority fails to perform a duty owed under law. So the absence of a fundamental-rights angle here does not defeat the petition, this option misapplies the test for mandamus.
3. Option C: This mischaracterizes the officer's role. Once the statute prescribes specific conditions for issuing a license and those conditions are met, the officer's function becomes mandatory and ministerial, not discretionary. If it were truly discretionary, the statutory conditions would be meaningless. So this option is factually wrong about the nature of the officer's duty.
4. Option D: This is incorrect because there is in fact a violation of public duty, the officer was statutorily bound to issue the license upon fulfilment of conditions and failed to do so. That failure to discharge a public duty is exactly why mandamus is available, so saying there is no such violation misstates the facts.

Only Option A correctly captures that a statutory, non-discretionary duty was breached, making mandamus available to compel performance.

Therefore, the correct answer is Writ of mandamus can be granted compelling the license officer to issue the license.

Answer 9

The correct option is (D): Writ of mandamus may be requested to be issued to compel performance of private duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature.

Answer 10

This question asks which statement about the writ of mandamus is incorrect, so each option needs to be tested against the accepted legal position on mandamus:

1. Option A: This is an accurate statement. A person seeking mandamus must ordinarily show the existence of a legal right in themselves that corresponds to the legal duty they want enforced against the authority. Since this correctly reflects the law, it is not the incorrect statement.
2. Option B: This is also accurate. Mandamus is directed against a person or authority that has a mandatory duty, one that is not optional or discretionary, and has failed or neglected to perform it. This is a standard and correct description of when mandamus lies, so it is not the incorrect statement.
3. Option C: This too is an accurate description of the underlying purpose of mandamus, it is meant to prevent disorder that would otherwise result from a failure of justice, by ensuring public authorities carry out the duties the law places on them. This is not the incorrect statement.
4. Option D: This is the incorrect statement, and hence the answer. Mandamus is a public law remedy used to compel the performance of public duties, duties that are administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature, but owed to the public, not private duties owed by one private individual to another. Describing it as compelling performance of "private duties" misstates the very nature of the writ, since private obligations are enforced through ordinary civil remedies, not mandamus.

Three of the four statements correctly describe mandamus, while one wrongly substitutes "private" duties for what should be "public" duties.

Therefore, the correct answer is Writ of mandamus may be requested to be issued to compel performance of private duties which may be administrative, ministerial or statutory in nature.